The court affirmed that Grama-sasan approval was unnecessary for de-reservation of Gochar land as they do not own it, validating the construction of a truck terminal for public benefit.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Nayak, learned AGA for State – opposite parties.

2. Present petitioners have prayed for a direction to the State – opposite parties to demolish the construction of truck terminal on the Gochar land of village Dharampur under Tarbod Grama Panchayat in the district of Nuapada. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that such construction of truck terminal over Gochar land of the village is without consent of the Grama-sasan and without following due process of de-reservation.

3. Mr. Joshi submits that the Grama-sasan is the owner of all such Gochar lands of the village in terms of the provisions contained in Section 71 of the Gram Panchayat Act and therefore, entire proceedings of Alienation Committee to handover the land for construction of truck terminal are invalid. Mr. Joshi further submits that the process of de- reservation of the land in terms of Section 3-A of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act (OGLS Act) has been violated in present case for alienation of the land for the purpose of construction of truck terminal.

4. On the contrary Mr. Nayak, learned AGA contends that such submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners regarding ownership of the land with Gram-sasan is not at all correct and actually the de- reservation of the land in question has been done following due process of law as prescribed in OGLS Act and Rules. The Collector being the empowered authority has properly de-reserved the land vide his order dated 17^th April, 2025 in De-Reservation Case Record No.3 of 2024. Thus the petitioner’s contentions are all incorrect and moreover present petitioners do not have any locus to maintain this writ petition challenging the action of the government. Mr. Nayak further submits that construction of truck terminal is for the purpose of betterment of public at large and to be used for public purpose. Therefore, the writ petition should not be allowed and may be dismissed with cost.

5. First of all to see the locus of the petitioners to challenge such action of the government in Commerce and Transport department regarding construction of truck terminal over the land in question in Komna Block, the petitioners have stated themselves to be the villagers of Dharampur and as such their rights and interest have been violated being the villagers of Dharampur. It needs to be mentioned here that it is true that public objection has been invited before the site was selected for construction of truck terminal over the land in question. But such invitation of objection from public in that respect would not create an enforceable right in favour of the petitioners with their status as villagers of Dharampur to challenge such action of the government in construction of the truck terminal. However, it is nowhere stated by the petitioners that how their personal rights were violated by such action of the State- opposite parties. It is not that the petitioners have pleaded to be the owners of such number of cattles and that, by construction of the truck terminal over the Gochar land they have been deprived of grazing their cattle or their right to use the Gochar land has been violated. This seriously put a question mark on the very intention and locus of the petitioners to challenge the construction of truck terminal over the land in question.

6. It is seen that the truck terminal is constructed over Plot No.652 measuring eight acres under Khata No.253 of Mouza – Dharampur in Komna Tahasil. As seen from the counter affidavit, the site selection and alienation process was done by authorized committee and after de- reservation, th